Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mnodonnell

David Paszkiewicz should be fired

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Okay, so obviously I'm so much in your head that you're making me the topic instead of O'Donnell's topic.

Funny stuff Keith.  You make a mockery of yourself.

70133[/snapback]

Yes Bryan you are right! I can't get you out of my head. I always make you the topic because I'm in love with you Bryan. I can't hid it anymore and I know you feel the same way! I want to make wet, sloppy Republican man love to you Bryan! Take me stud, take me now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Yeah Keith, get in line and smoke 'em if you got 'em, because you're not one to follow the leader.

70180[/snapback]

I would love to have a smoke. Is that still legal anywhere in this "free" country of ours?

What leader and I supposely following? I certainly hope you aren't referring to President Numbnuts. Because again, you would be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

The line is already appropriately drawn by the courts under the Constitution: "A public school teacher may not promote a religion, but may discuss religion as history within the context of the curriculum." It's a reasonable and easily understandable rule.

If I were in charge at Kearny High, I would make sure teachers understood the distinction. If any teacher stepped as far over the line as Paszkiewicz did, especially with the lying that came later, I would fire him.

70113[/snapback]

Easily understandable? Maybe at first blush. However, you have conveniently left out the myriads of other opinions, discussions, dicta and obiter dicta addressing the extent of the Establishment Clause - which varies from circuit to circuit, and which only serve to muddy the waters further. Accordingly, I submit that when you are dealing with a topic that is a lightening rod - such as religion - a broad rule and strict interpretation are nearly impossible.

Why? Let's return to your simplistic explanation and figure out what exactly constitutes "promoting" a topic (religion or otherwise), and when exactly does discussing something cross the line to promoting it? What adjectives exactly turn a discussion into a promotion. Surely, there are degrees. And if there are degrees at what degree does someone deserve to be unemployed?

When dealing with dogs, there is something called the "one-bite rule", which means that you generally don't euthanize your dog the first time it bites someone, but once you have notice that they can and will bite, you have to be more restrictive with your pet to ensure that they do not bite again or risk losing your dog. If we afford such protections to dogs, shouldn't teachers be provided at least such protection as well? And wouldn't you want the same sort of consideration at your job?

Listen, if you have the cookies to walk into your place of work tomorrow, and address your boss by saying "Hi - the next time I make a mistake in any degree, I not only consent to your firing me, but I insist upon it" then do it, and come back and call for someone's head. Otherwise, leave it alone. It's a moot point in that he's still employed, and your focusing on whether he should be fired only serves to distract the attention from Matthew's efforts in effectuating POSITIVE change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I would love to have a smoke. Is that still legal anywhere in this "free" country of ours?

What leader and I supposely following? I certainly hope you aren't referring to President Numbnuts. Because again, you would be wrong.

70210[/snapback]

Yes it's still legal, until lawyers like Paul sue the sh*t out of the tobacco companies. But I have to admit I wish they would run the tobacco companies right out of business. I've never enjoyed going out to eateries and bars more than since they banned that crap. People like you forget that non smokers have rights and freedoms also.

High opinion of yourself don't you think. Really out there in front of the pack pushing the envelope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
But you are not in charge at Kearny High and go back to picking up the trash where ever you come from. At this website you are privy to only one side of the story and therefore you base your judgment on that. The guidelines are not clearly set and therefore your comment is stupid or do you think fat man LaClair would have had the teacher fired already.  Do not think that he is benevolent by any means. He only looks after himself.

70186[/snapback]

The law, which you're calling "guidelines," is perfectly clear to anyone with even a little bit of intelligence. But since you're having trouble with it, I'll give you a few examples so that even a D**bA** like you can understand.

From the following statements, a through e, select the one that promotes a religious opinion:

a. Penguins live in cold climates in the Southern Hemisphere.

b. Polar bears live in cold climates in the Northern Hemisphere.

c. Kangaroos are native to Australia.

d. Bears often hibernate in caves.

e. Dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.

Too difficult for you, D**bA**? Then try this one.

From the following statements, f through j, select the one that promotes a religious opinion:

f. Many Puritans settled in what is now Massachusetts.

g. Many Quakers settled in what is now Pennsylvania.

h. Many Scandanavian Protestants settled in the Northern Midwest, in what are now states like Minnesota and the Dakotas.

i. Many of the framers of the Constitution were Deists.

j. The Jews who settled in New York went to hell after they died unless they accepted Jesus as their personal savior.

Still not getting it, D**bA**? Try this one, then.

From the following statements, k through o, select the one that promotes a religious opinion:

k. Many Hindus believe that their religion forbids eating beef.

l. Many Jews believe that their religion forbids eating shellfish.

m. Many Muslims believe that their religion forbids eating pork.

n. Many Catholics believe that their religion forbids eating meat on Friday.

o. If you drink alcohol, you're going against the will of God.

So what's unclear, D**bA**? The recordings tell the whole story, there is no other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Yes it's still legal, until lawyers like Paul sue the sh*t out of the tobacco companies.  But I have to admit I wish they would run the tobacco companies right out of business.  I've never enjoyed going out to eateries and bars more than since they banned that crap.  People like you forget that non smokers have rights and freedoms also.

High opinion of yourself don't you think.  Really out there in front of the pack pushing the envelope.

70238[/snapback]

I have no problem with a private establishment banning smoking if they wish, sweeping laws to FORCE a PRIVATE establishment is another story altogether.

You can villanize the smoker all you want but maybe you should take a good look a what is in the food and beverage that you consume everyday. Non smokers die of cancer everyday. Silly me I thought this was the land of the free where adults were allowed to make thier own choices.

Guess I better give GW a call to see what I'm allowed to do tommorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you are not in charge at Kearny High and go back to picking up the trash where ever you come from. At this website you are privy to only one side of the story and therefore you base your judgment on that.

Ad hominem plus lie.

The guidelines are not clearly set

It is very clear, and has legal precedent what does, and doesn't, cross the line. The above statement is also false.

and therefore your comment is stupid

More ad hom.

or do you think fat man LaClair would have had the teacher fired already.

He specifically avoided seeking Paszkiewicz's dismissal, as he said. He had more than enough 'ammo' to get him fired if he sought to, though it's dismaying that it wasn't done regardless.

Do not think that he is benevolent by any means. He only looks after himself.

70186[/snapback]

Baseless assertion, not to mention directly contradicted by his helping his son stand up for the Constitution, which is an act that is good for all US citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The law, which you're calling "guidelines," is perfectly clear to anyone with even a little bit of intelligence. But since you're having trouble with it, I'll give you a few examples so that even a D**bA** like you can understand.

From the following statements, a through e, select the one that promotes a religious opinion:

a. Penguins live in cold climates in the Southern Hemisphere.

b. Polar bears live in cold climates in the Northern Hemisphere.

c. Kangaroos are native to Australia.

d. Bears often hibernate in caves.

e. Dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.

Too difficult for you, D**bA**? Then try this one.

There was no teaching that Dinosaurs were on the ark. The above illustration tends to create the opposite impression (via analogy).

From the following statements, f through j, select the one that promotes a religious opinion:

f. Many Puritans settled in what is now Massachusetts.

g. Many Quakers settled in what is now Pennsylvania.

h. Many Scandanavian Protestants settled in the Northern Midwest, in what are now states like Minnesota and the Dakotas.

i. Many of the framers of the Constitution were Deists.

j. The Jews who settled in New York went to hell after they died unless they accepted Jesus as their personal savior.

There's no parallel here to anything said by Paszkiewicz.

Still not getting it, D**bA**? Try this one, then.

From the following statements, k through o, select the one that promotes a religious opinion:

k. Many Hindus believe that their religion forbids eating beef.

l. Many Jews believe that their religion forbids eating shellfish.

m. Many Muslims believe that their religion forbids eating pork.

n. Many Catholics believe that their religion forbids eating meat on Friday.

o. If you drink alcohol, you're going against the will of God.

So what's unclear, D**bA**? The recordings tell the whole story, there is no other side.

70255[/snapback]

Now watch how the magic of context refutes the example.

What do Muslims believe?

A variety of things. You're supposed to follow the Holy Qu'ran. You have to pray facing Mecca.

o. If you drink alcohol, you're going against the will of (Allah).

You're expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Context matters.

That's why Mr. LaClair's behavior in this situation has been deplorable. He has repeatedly ignored the context, no doubt on account of his own religious and political bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Easily understandable?  Maybe at first blush.  However, you have conveniently left out the myriads of other opinions, discussions, dicta and obiter dicta addressing the extent of the Establishment Clause - which varies from circuit to circuit, and which only serve to muddy the waters further.  Accordingly, I submit that when you are dealing with a topic that is a lightening rod - such as religion - a broad rule and strict interpretation are nearly impossible.

Why?  Let's return to your simplistic explanation and figure out what exactly constitutes "promoting" a topic (religion or otherwise), and when exactly does discussing something cross the line to promoting it?  What adjectives exactly turn a discussion into a promotion.  Surely, there are degrees.  And if there are degrees at what degree does someone deserve to be unemployed?

When dealing with dogs, there is something called the "one-bite rule", which means that you generally don't euthanize your dog the first time it bites someone, but once you have notice that they can and will bite, you have to be more restrictive with your pet to ensure that they do not bite again or risk losing your dog.  If we afford such protections to dogs, shouldn't teachers be provided at least such protection as well?  And wouldn't you want the same sort of consideration at your job?

Listen, if you have the cookies to walk into your place of work tomorrow, and address your boss by saying "Hi - the next time I make a mistake in any degree, I not only consent to your firing me, but I insist upon it" then do it, and come back and call for someone's head.  Otherwise, leave it alone.  It's a moot point in that he's still employed, and your focusing on whether he should be fired only serves to distract the attention from Matthew's efforts in effectuating POSITIVE change.

70218[/snapback]

Close cases don't draw this kind of attention, and this wasn't a close case. This conduct was egregious and sustained, and didn't even end with the Constitutional violations. It persisted through the lying in an attempt to intimidate Matthew. In short, Paszkiewicz blatantly violated the Constitution in a way that is obvious to anyone with half a brain, then he lied about it, tried to get his student in trouble, then he stood by silently while the same student was attacked. This was not a small mistake of any degree. It was sustained conduct that goes not only to Paszkiewicz's unwillingness to accept limits on where he can preach, but also to his moral character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
...it's a hypothetical situation. Mature adults are capable of understanding his point without going into this rant about how 'sick' Paul is. His whole freaking point was that in both cases, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to act despite what the student(s) want(s). Use your head, geez!

By your logic, if I said "Well, taking a submachine gun to school and slaughtering a bunch of innocent people would also be wrong," I'm now a murder-obsessed, "sick" person. Don't you see how absurd this logic is? Are you so mentally bereft that you are incapable of understanding even the slightest bit of analogy/hypothetical/metaphor?

70137[/snapback]

Don't you find it ironic that you have to defend Paul, saying he was thinking of a 16 year old naked on a desk? You can call me anything you wish but I did not say it, your companion Paul did.

Oh and by the way two days ago a child was removed from school by a teacher for drawing a cartoon of a water pistol shooting at another child. So in keeping with that thinking, I am forwarding your post to the proper authorities to make sure that you do not become that murder-obsessed "sick" person you say you are and go near the schools. Even talking about subjects like that openly is wrong and I want to make sure you are identified. It’s like saying bomb at the airport. There are things that shouldn't be said.

And in the comment about what Paul said about the young lady on desk, he never did say it was wrong, did he?

I know you like to defend every LaClair comment that comes on here, but this time you are very wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
To put it bluntly, you have to be one of the sickest people in the world to sit at home and think of things like this.  I wonder if this is how you spend those quiet nights of yours at home ? Please do not bring your personal experience into this?

There are too many good people in this town for you to try to corrupt.  I just hope that none of these 16 year old girls have nothing to do with your son. Maybe next time you could get more graphic in your details of this like it was in a dream of yours or something?

70067[/snapback]

i smell repression, or is it .................................frustration ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I have no problem with a private establishment banning smoking if they wish, sweeping laws to FORCE a PRIVATE establishment is another story altogether.

You can villanize the smoker all you want but maybe you should take a good look a what is in the food and beverage that you consume everyday. Non smokers die of cancer everyday. Silly me I thought this was the land of the free where adults were allowed to make thier own choices.

Guess I better give GW a call to see what I'm allowed to do tommorrow.

70274[/snapback]

Foods and beverages have nutritional value. Even soda contains water. When taxpayers have to spend billions of dollars on health care because of private choices, those choices become everyone's concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
There was no teaching that Dinosaurs were on the ark.  The above illustration tends to create the opposite impression (via analogy).

There's no parallel here to anything said by Paszkiewicz.

Now watch how the magic of context refutes the example.

What do Muslims believe?

A variety of things.  You're supposed to follow the Holy Qu'ran.  You have to pray facing Mecca.

o.  If you drink alcohol, you're going against the will of (Allah).

You're expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Context matters.

That's why Mr. LaClair's behavior in this situation has been deplorable.  He has repeatedly ignored the context, no doubt on account of his own religious and political bias.

70284[/snapback]

A student asked Paszkiewicz whether dinosaurs were on Noah's ark and he said yes.

Paszkiewicz specifically said that no one attains heaven except those who believe in Jesus. It doesn't take much smarts to figure out that he was saying unconverted Jews don't go to heaven. Since Paszkiewicz also specifically said that everyone goes either to heaven or hell, he told the class by implication that all Jews are bound for hell. That's several steps beyond what he is allowed to do.

Some Methodists and other Christians believe that drinking alcohol is a sin. This isn't limited to Muslims, and anyway, the point is not whether Paszkiewicz said any of these things. The point is whether the law is clear. It is, at least insofar as these examples.

As for Bryan . . . let's not even bother. He makes absolutely no sense, and if you want to talk about biases . . .! :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I have no problem with a private establishment banning smoking if they wish, sweeping laws to FORCE a PRIVATE establishment is another story altogether.

You can villanize the smoker all you want but maybe you should take a good look a what is in the food and beverage that you consume everyday. Non smokers die of cancer everyday. Silly me I thought this was the land of the free where adults were allowed to make thier own choices.

Guess I better give GW a call to see what I'm allowed to do tommorrow.

70274[/snapback]

When I choose to eat something it doesn't affect you. When smokers smoke they affect everyone around them. Because they are personality types that can't control themselves the government has to do it for them. Like Paul says, they have to be put on the potty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
There was no teaching that Dinosaurs were on the ark.  The above illustration tends to create the opposite impression (via analogy).

There's no parallel here to anything said by Paszkiewicz.

Now watch how the magic of context refutes the example.

What do Muslims believe?

A variety of things.  You're supposed to follow the Holy Qu'ran.  You have to pray facing Mecca.

o.  If you drink alcohol, you're going against the will of (Allah).

You're expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Context matters.

That's why Mr. LaClair's behavior in this situation has been deplorable.  He has repeatedly ignored the context, no doubt on account of his own religious and political bias.

70284[/snapback]

Ok, if things were taken unfairly out of context then why would Mr. Paszkiewicz feel the need to lie about the incident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Ok, if things were taken unfairly out of context then why would Mr. Paszkiewicz feel the need to lie about the incident?

70345[/snapback]

Not only that. Why wouldn't Paszkiewicz or his lawyer have explained that he never said dinosaurs were on Noah's ark (as just one example), if in fact he hadn't said that? For the simple reason that he did say it, and would be lampooned in the press if he tried to deny it. So he has a few lackeys who come here to try to deny the obvious for him, but their denials don't change the facts.

He said it, in open class in a public school. Run from the facts all you like, you can't escape them, for the simple reason that one very resourceful teenager recorded it.

What you're showing us, members of the radical religious right, is how little the facts mean to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, if things were taken unfairly out of context then why would Mr. Paszkiewicz feel the need to lie about the incident?

70345[/snapback]

That's just it, Keith. The supposedly lie you're talking about is more of the same irresponsible technique of taking things out of context.

You identify what you think was a lie and I'll show you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
When I choose to eat something it doesn't affect you.  When smokers smoke they affect everyone around them.  Because they are personality types that can't control themselves the government has to do it for them.  Like Paul says, they have to be put on the potty.

70329[/snapback]

If I have to I'll grow my own tobacco. The statement was about forcing a PRIVATE establishment to ban smoking. If an establishment offers smoking and you don't like it...DON'T GO IN THERE! We don't need a LAWS for that. Smoking will take some years off my life, but at least they will be years I spent living MY life MY way! Instead of a long drawn existence in a puritancal opressive society! You want the government running YOUR life? As for me no thanks. What's next by the way? French Fries? Butter? Red Meat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Foods and beverages have nutritional value. Even soda contains water. When taxpayers have to spend billions of dollars on health care because of private choices, those choices become everyone's concerns.

70323[/snapback]

I have my own health insurance. Do I have to give up my motorcycle too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,MO
That's just it, Keith.  The supposedly lie you're talking about is more of the same irresponsible technique of taking things out of context.

You identify what you think was a lie and I'll show you.

70369[/snapback]

Than man got busted, he denied it. What more do you need to know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The law, which you're calling "guidelines," is perfectly clear to anyone with even a little bit of intelligence. But since you're having trouble with it, I'll give you a few examples so that even a D**bA** like you can understand.

From the following statements, a through e, select the one that promotes a religious opinion:

a. Penguins live in cold climates in the Southern Hemisphere.

b. Polar bears live in cold climates in the Northern Hemisphere.

c. Kangaroos are native to Australia.

d. Bears often hibernate in caves.

e. Dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.

Too difficult for you, D**bA**? Then try this one.

From the following statements, f through j, select the one that promotes a religious opinion:

f. Many Puritans settled in what is now Massachusetts.

g. Many Quakers settled in what is now Pennsylvania.

h. Many Scandanavian Protestants settled in the Northern Midwest, in what are now states like Minnesota and the Dakotas.

i. Many of the framers of the Constitution were Deists.

j. The Jews who settled in New York went to hell after they died unless they accepted Jesus as their personal savior.

Still not getting it, D**bA**? Try this one, then.

From the following statements, k through o, select the one that promotes a religious opinion:

k. Many Hindus believe that their religion forbids eating beef.

l. Many Jews believe that their religion forbids eating shellfish.

m. Many Muslims believe that their religion forbids eating pork.

n. Many Catholics believe that their religion forbids eating meat on Friday.

o. If you drink alcohol, you're going against the will of God.

So what's unclear, D**bA**? The recordings tell the whole story, there is no other side.

70255[/snapback]

Ummm ... excuse me Mr. Non-D**bA** ... but back in the dark ages when I went to Kearny High, classroom discussions did not take place in a multiple choice format. I see where you are going, but again, this is waaaaaaaaaaa (almost done ) aaaaay oversimplified proposition and it ignores the ebb and flow typically involved in a worthwhile classroom discussion.

Now, if you are going to replace teachers with books on tape that are played in front of the classroom, you can rely on the fact that there will be no personal interjections, biases or opinions. But when you're dealing with human beings - who may be unaware of their own biases and/or stereotypes - you have to accept a little "opinion transfer" during the "knowledge transfer". And a little interjection now and then can be valuable additions to the education process.

To (hopefully) make my point, let's consider a hypothetical. Assume that Matthew grows up and does the world a favor by getting into education .... shall we say a history teacher at KHS? And let's further assume that, during a classroom discussion 20 years from now, a student asks Matthew whether dinosaurs were on Noah's ark. And Matthew, in an unguarded moment, replies, "I just don't see it as being scientifically possible, but we're not really going to discuss that in this class".

I'd venture to say that it's not part of the state approved curriculum even in 2027 - but should he be fired for crossing the line? Seems like many - including yourself - are calling for a zero tolerance policy. While not the D**bA** to whom you were replying, I would venture to say that this is a matter of degree and would not justify a termination. Am I wrong (and believe me, I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise, just no one has done so yet)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Close cases don't draw this kind of attention, and this wasn't a close case. This conduct was egregious and sustained, and didn't even end with the Constitutional violations. It persisted through the lying in an attempt to intimidate Matthew. In short, Paszkiewicz blatantly violated the Constitution in a way that is obvious to anyone with half a brain, then he lied about it, tried to get his student in trouble, then he stood by silently while the same student was attacked. This was not a small mistake of any degree. It was sustained conduct that goes not only to Paszkiewicz's unwillingness to accept limits on where he can preach, but also to his moral character.

70293[/snapback]

I am not stating that Mr. P made "small" mistakes. I am dealing from the perspective of the individual that has to decide if Mr. P loses his job. So, let's look at the facts:

1. There was no proof that he was a recidivist - his record was clear of any discipline for prior like statements.

2. There was no final adjudication in a disinterested court of competent jurisdiction (or other labor, administrative or other governmental or quasi-governmental authority) that Mr. P violated Constitutional bounds.

3. There is no definitive "proof" that Mr. P lied - there is supposition and ample evidence that he said one thing in the classroom, and said another in Mr. Somma's office. However, he did not have the benefit of being able to review recordings of the classroom discussion, nor did he make any affidavit swearing that he never made those statements. Accordingly, as scienter is an issue in determining lying, I only have hard proof of misstatements, not lying.

4. He was under no legal obligation to protect Matthew. He may have had a moral obligation, but not since the final episode of "Seinfeld" has violating the Good Samaritan rule been punishable.

Now, if you want to go with a "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument, that's your call. BUT, I am not going to take on the teacher's union with this evidence. Moreover, while you can characterize his conduct as being "egregious" and an "obvious" "blatant" violation" such that it warrants his immediate dismissal, you should at least acknowledge that your opinions are subjective, and reasonable minds CAN differ ... such as the Board of Education and administration who decided to keep him employed, as well as the LaClair family, who did not call for his dismissal.

Keeping the calls for Mr. P's head going at DefCon 5 really isn't doing anyone any good ... and it amounts to nothing more than an exercise in impotence. How 'bout doing something positive instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was no teaching that Dinosaurs were on the ark.  The above illustration tends to create the opposite impression (via analogy).

There's no parallel here to anything said by Paszkiewicz.

Now watch how the magic of context refutes the example.

What do Muslims believe?

A variety of things.  You're supposed to follow the Holy Qu'ran.  You have to pray facing Mecca.

o.  If you drink alcohol, you're going against the will of (Allah).

You're expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Context matters.

That's why Mr. LaClair's behavior in this situation has been deplorable.  He has repeatedly ignored the context, no doubt on account of his own religious and political bias.

70284[/snapback]

His religious and political bias? The following is a response to that comment.

http://www.evo.hr/cat/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you find it ironic that you have to defend Paul,

Who said I have to defend him, or that I felt obligated in any way? I responded purely with disgust at the poster's idiotic comments.

I'm guessing your conclusion will be as pulled-out-of-your-ass as your premise. Let's find out.

saying he was thinking of a 16 year old naked on a desk?  You can call me anything you wish but I did not say it, your companion Paul did.

And it was just an analogy. The idiotic extrapolation of it into acting like Paul was describing his favorite fantasy or something like that is the ridiculous part.

Oh and by the way two days ago a child was removed from school by a teacher for drawing a cartoon of a water pistol shooting at another child.  So in keeping with that thinking,  I am forwarding your post to the proper authorities to make sure that you do not become that murder-obsessed "sick" person you say you are and go near the schools.

What are you babbling about?

Even talking about subjects like that openly is wrong and I want to make sure you are identified.  It’s like saying bomb at the airport.  There are things that shouldn't be said.

First of all, no actual event was being referred to. And even so, things even worse (that actually happened!) are used in analogies all the time. Just about every terrorist attack made or attempted in 2002 or later is compared to 9/11. But by your logic, using 9/11 in an analogy is "wrong" and so comparisons like that should never be made. That's some absurd logic you have there.

And in the comment about what Paul said about the young lady on desk, he never did say it was wrong, did he?

He declared that student consent doesn't give a teacher the right to do something he's normally not allowed to do, then he compared it to a hypothetical student making sexual advances. Obviously he feels the same way about the situation that he used as an analogy: 'it's not okay for a teacher to do something just because a student consents.' Duh, so obvious!

I know you like to defend every LaClair comment that comes on here,

No; it only seems that way because it's the LaClairs that most often have jackasses making up lies and baseless accusations about them. I oppose the dishonesty itself, regardless of the target--behavior like that sickens me.

but this time you are very wrong.

70309[/snapback]

You've failed to show how, unsurprisingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...